SNP ministers ditch plans for long-promised anti-women hatred law in major U-turn
Ministers claimed a misogyny bill would be too complex to finish within the remaining year of this parly session
NATS chiefs today ditched their long-promised anti-women hatred law and signalled they would introduce an offence covering prejudice against both sexes instead.
In a major u-turn after years of committing to a misogyny bill, SNP ministers confirmed it would be dropped in favour of expanding the controversial Hate Crime Act.
Advertisement
2
MSPs pinned part of the blame on the Supreme Court judgement that sex in equality law is defined by biological sex
Credit: EPA
The plans would see the 'protected characteristic' of sex - meaning women or men - added to legislation which has been fully in place for just over a year.
It paves the way for crimes of stirring up hatred against men and women to be prosecuted, as well as added a sex-based 'aggravation' - a bolt-on for other offences, triggering stiffer punishment.
Freedom of speech protections about misogyny will also be added to the bill, protecting 'discussion or criticism'.
Ministers claimed a misogyny bill - recommended in a major review for the government by Baroness Helena Kennedy - would be too complex to finish within the remaining year of this parly session.
Advertisement
A written statement to MSPs, released after the end of the parliamentary week, also pinned part of the blame on last month's landmark Supreme Court judgement that sex in equality law is defined by biological sex.
It said: 'This is a complex area of policy and law, and it would be necessary that any Bill which brought misogyny into criminal law contained clear and unambiguous provisions in regard to the circumstances in which they apply.
'This would include the implications of the recent Supreme Court Judgment.'
Last year the Scottish Government had insisted ministers would introduce a misogyny bill which would be 'the first of its kind in the world' to 'create a new focus on protecting women and girls to address criminal behaviour motivated purely by misogyny."
Advertisement
The u-turn flies in the face of recommendations by Labour peer and human rights lawyer Baroness Kennedy KC's review of misogyny law.
Her report in 2022 concluded adding sex to the Hate Crime Act would not work as 'misogyny is so deeply rooted in our patriarchal ecosystem that it requires a more fundamental set of responses."
Maggie Chapman saved from AXE by SNP after accusing Supreme Court of 'bigotry & hatred'
It added a hate law was needed "exclusively for women" because "this malign conduct does not happen to men in any comparable way'.
At the time, Nicola Sturgeon said the report from Baroness Kennedy was 'ground-breaking', 'bold', and 'far-reaching'.
Advertisement
The lawyer and peer said earlier this month that she was worried ministers would ditch her recommendations 'given the divisive nature of public debate around 'woke' issues.
She added: 'Protecting women and girls from abusive behaviour and threats of rape and violence, online and offline, is very important now.'
SNP ministers' latest position - adding a protected characteristic of 'sex' to current hate laws - is similar to the idea suggested by judge Lord Bracadale in his 2018 hare crime review for the Scottish Government. It floated an 'aggravation' in law based on 'gender hostility', rather than a specific protection for women.
2
Nats chiefs today ditched their long-promised anti-women hatred law
Credit: Alamy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
SNP ministers face new trans row legal threat
The Scottish Government is being threatened with legal action unless it ends the 'unlawful' practice of allowing biological males to use female-only spaces 'immediately'. Maya Forstater, CEO of Sex Matters, has written to SNP ministers urging them not to wait for Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance on how April's Supreme Court ruling should be implemented. Judges ruled that biological sex defined if a person is male or female and put women- only spaces off-limits to biological males who identify as women. It was a huge defeat for Scottish ministers after campaign group For Women Scotland took them to court. Since then there have been calls for the SNP government to order public bodies, including prisons, hospitals and schools, to fully comply with the ruling. Speaking at the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh last night, Ms Forstater insisted the government has been 'stalling' by failing to take action until the EHRC issues guidance. And she warned that her human rights charity is now prepared to take legal action. She said: 'The judgment has clarified the law. Its effect is not suspended pending updated guidance from the EHRC. It is the law now. To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop its unlawful practices we may decide to commence proceedings. We have consulted with counsel and are prepared to litigate.' The Scottish Government last night said: 'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment.' Police Scotland has been ordered to carry out a review after it failed to disclose a transgender prisoner's criminal record. Justice Secretary Angela Constance said the force had made an 'error' after a lawyer got a blank rap sheet back from the Crown Office for convicted killer Alex Stewart – who was originally called Alan Baker.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court work goes on with 16 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump 's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 16 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. On Wednesday it handed down an opinion in one of its most closely watched cases that upheld a Tennessee ban on gender transition related healthcare for minors. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
SNP rebels do not have an alternative leader to John Swinney
Even the most assiduous of Nat-watchers would struggle to hazard a guess about how many times John Swinney has launched himself into a declaration that he'd fight to his last drop – or words to that effect – to achieve independence for Scotland. Being the relatively modest chap that he is, I doubt if even Mr Swinney would get close to naming the correct number of such speeches. And after all, given the paucity of other policies in the SNP playbook, independence obviously gets a lot of mentions. As a result, we've now had old 'Say-it-Again Swinney' returning again to his favourite theme, this time at a conference that rejoiced in the title of Scotland 2050. Now, I'm assuming that even a long marcher in the cause of independence, as he is, wasn't thinking of hanging around for another 25 years or so – but why return to that boring old tale? There have been suggestions that he's doing it because there are signs of a backbench plot to unseat him as leader following the humiliating SNP defeat in the Hamilton Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It's true that, for a seasoned warrior, Mr Swinney's campaign was a decidedly cack-handed affair, constantly warning about the danger posed by Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Needless to say, all that did was talk up Reform's chances – and so it proved. Labour reaped the benefit, the SNP was second, with Reform third, and almost immediately the know-nothings on the Nat backbenches rushed forward with audible mutterings that Swinney had to go. However, I can't really believe that the First Minister is losing a minute's sleep over these supposed threats. Like lemmings peering over the cliff edge, these heroes seem to be threatening rebellion but without the foggiest idea about how to go about it. And, most of all, who would lead them? That's the biggest gap in their prospectus because, while there may be a few suicide merchants in their ranks, I can't think of a single overly ambitious Nat candidate who stacks up as 'possible' leader. Kate Forbes is the current Deputy First Minister and just about everybody's choice as a possible successor – everybody, that is, except perhaps the lady herself. Widely seen as a clever politician with sensible economic views, she delivered a ringing denunciation this week of the 'destructive nature' of much of the content of social media, calling it 'totally misogynistic'. She did try to become SNP leader and first minister after Nicola Sturgeon's shock resignation but was beaten by Humza Yousaf, the man Ms Sturgeon wanted as her successor and campaigned for hard. If Mr Swinney were to resign, she might well have another try for the top job but very few expect her to try to force him out any time soon. Furthermore, there's very little chance of him resigning this side of next May's Scottish Parliament election. All of this means that there won't be much scope for plotting at this weekend's gathering of the SNP's national council … always assuming that the plotters turn up.
